Sustainability 12 05155

sustainability
Article
Environmental Risk Management for Museums in
Historic Buildings through an Innovative Approach:
A Case Study of the Pinacoteca di Brera in Milan (Italy)
Elena Lucchi
EURAC Research, Politecnico di Milano, 20133 Milano, Italy; elena.lucchi@polimi.it

Received: 9 May 2020; Accepted: 22 June 2020; Published: 24 June 2020
Abstract: In the contemporary age, museums are dealing with unexpected challenges, related to
the transformation of social structures, educative methods and cultural diffusion. The conversion
of heritage buildings into exhibition halls and the renovation of existent exhibits involve a series
of environmental risks and preservation issues. The study aims to demonstrate that conservation
and human comfort are mutually compatible, when based on rational planning, interdisciplinary
cooperation, and extensive knowledge of the features of buildings and collections. This study
carries out an operative strategy for assessing and managing the environmental risks in museum
buildings. To validate its suitability, it is applied to the Pinacoteca di Brera in Milan (Italy), an old
palace completely reshaped in the 20th century following the typical design concepts of the “Modern
Movement of Architecture” (e.g., rational planning, use of innovative technologies and materials,
profusion of natural light integrated with artificial lighting, etc.). Several solutions adopted in these
years caused both heritage decay and human discomfort. In addition, the insertion of new functions
required a complete modification of the original design project. For this reason, the proposed tool
supports the environmental risk management connected with these transformations, also defining
clear maintenance guidelines, and planning low-engineering and low-impact solutions to satisfy,
in a practical way, the daily needs of conservators, heritage authorities and designers. Furthermore,
technical skills and the awareness of museum staff has been improved.
Keywords: museum buildings; preventive conservation; human comfort; conservation of 20th

century buildings; risk management; low-engineering intervention
1. Introduction
The care and the enhancement of historic and artistic heritage preserves the memory of a
community and assists the social development of a nation. These actions facilitate the diffusion of
a “sense” of cultural heritage, and give a social, cultural and economic value to the patrimony [1].
Furthermore, the Council of Europe stated “[ . . . ] the need to involve everyone in society in the
ongoing process of defining and managing cultural heritage” [2], to encourage the modernization of
the sector [2,3]. In this context, cultural heritage plays an important role in sharing a dynamic and
proactive notion of cultural services, to attract more public funding, and to create public value [4]. Thus,
the museums, traditionally designated for heritage conservation, assume also an educational role for
transmitting heritage values, for sharing innovative education approaches, and for promoting touristic
activities [4]. The International Council of Museums (hereinafter, ICOM) recognized the social role of
the museum [4], introducing a new definition the institution as something “[ . . . ] open to the public,
which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage
of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment” [1]. Museum
architecture anticipated this conceptual shift: the “collision of architecture and culture” [5] changed
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5155; doi:10.3390/su12125155 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 5155 2 of 22
the traditional idea of a “museum” as a “monolithic institution” [6] since the opening of the Pompidou
Centre in 1977 [5]. A new notion of the “modern museum” in the Post-Pompidou Age arose [5], as a
dynamic concept based on multi-disciplinary functions and continuously transforming spaces [5].
Close to the traditional structures deputed to preservation, research and exhibition, new leisure
facilities were inserted to host educational functions, didactic rooms, amusement spaces, bookshops,
conference rooms, libraries, shops, cafeterias and restaurants [4,5,7,8]. Nowadays, the museums
acquire also the tasks of environmental sustainability, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,
and energy efficiency [9–11]. The conversion of listed buildings (i.e., palaces, castles, and so on) into
exhibition spaces, and the renovation of the existent exhibits, involves adjunctive environmental
risks [9,10]. Environmental quality in museum buildings depends on achieving the right balance
between several complex and frequently contradictory aspects, such as: public enjoyment, touristic
entertainment, communication, indoor climate control, users’ comfort, display, preservation, energy
savings and safety precautions [11,12]. The traditional logic of “restoration”, where the effects
of decay are repaired and reinforced by invasive interventions [13], was gradually abandoned to
adopt the idea of “prevention” [14] of damages and risks. The discipline of preventive conservation
departs from this idea, trying to balance these complex aspects [14,15]. It is defined as a process of
“[ . . . ] non-interventive actions taken to prevent damage and minimize deterioration of a museum
object” [16]. This approach fosters a logic of long-term interventions, based on “[ . . . ] modest
maintenance actions repeated over time” [17] or “[ . . . ] regular and permanent maintenance” [18].
Its focus moves from the collection or from the historical object, to the context surrounding the
heritage [13,19,20]. The international standards are making progress in this direction, establishing the
optimal environmental levels for reducing the indoor climate risks related to light, air temperature,
relative humidity and pollutant concentration [21–23]. Initially, only the decay caused by a single
parameter was considered [11,14,24–29]. Later, their cumulative effects [12] and their impact on
human comfort [30] were taken into account. Several standards defined the environmental levels
for reducing decay [31–39]. Numerous cultural institutions concerted these standards in guidelines
and policies for environmental management, adapting their practical experiences to the variety
of heritage features and local rules [14,15,40–47]. The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration
and Air-Conditioning Engineers (hereinafter, ASHRAE) handbook [48] changed completely the
traditional logic of environmental risk management based on the respect of severe indoor conditions.
It specified the environmental climatic ranges for four “museum climate classes”, referring to the
characteristics of the buildings, the collections and the systems (Section 4.2). These specifications
were not prescriptive, but this theory remarked on the importance of the environmental design
and risk management [49]. Elsewhere, the European (hereinafter, EU) Committee CEN/TC 346 [50]
provided a systematic procedure for preserving artworks, as well as controlling the environmental
variables, and implementing energy efficiency, environmental sustainability and human comfort.
In parallel, the “New Orleans Charter for the Joint Preservation of Historic Structures and Artefacts”
defined the environmental parameters to be utilized for reducing the risks of damage during the
transformation of a historic building into a museum [51,52]. The discussions confirm the ASHRAE
approach: “[ . . . ] the value of conservation approaches based on flexible, relevant principle rather
than on fixed standards” [51]. The International Centre for the Study of Preservation and Restoration
of Cultural Property (hereinafter, ICCROM) published a guide to facilitate the risk management in
cultural heritage [53], starting from an understanding of the environmental, socio-cultural, economic
and legal contexts. The procedure was based on several steps, referred to as identification, evaluation,
treatment and the monitoring of risks (for a detailed discussion and a comparison with the present
methodology see Section 2) [53]. Further, a recent book concerns the decision-making process for
assisting collection managers and caretakers in the management of climate risk in museums and historic
houses [54]. This process consists of nine steps: (i) development of clear objectives; (ii) evaluation
of the significance of the building and the movable collection; (iii) assessment of the climate risks to
the movable collection; (iv) identification of the valuable part of the building; (v) identification of the
human comfort needs for visitors and staff; (vi) building physics exploration; (vii) weighting of the
climate specifications; (viii) definition of the options to optimize the indoor climate; (ix) definition of
the options to reduce the climate collection risks. The scientific literature proposes different models for
assessing the environmental risks. Overall, these approaches require technical support for helping
museum curators during the assessment. Two typologies of study are realized: analytical calculations
and simulation models. Analytical calculations refer mainly to the introduction of different indices for
climatic risk, that balance conservation and human comfort [55–63]. Otherwise, dynamic building
energy models support the risk assessments used to quantify the problems [64–66]. In both cases,
indoor monitoring data are used for validating the study [57,59,62–66]. These approaches require
specialized skills, high costs, and long evaluation times [58,67]. For this reason, they are not easily
applicable by the museum staff (e.g., curators, archivists, collection managers, conservators) for daily
management. On the contrary, these models necessitate the support of professional consultants, such as
environmental auditors, building simulators, and so on.
2. Aim of the Study

This research aims at establishing an innovative procedure for the environmental risk assessment
and management of multifunctional museums located in historic buildings, and to organize the
interventions efficiently, economically and durably. This operative procedure is based on the Screening,
Observation, Analysis, and Expertise (SOBANE) strategy, a strategic approach to risk assessment
and management [56] adopted also by the ICCROM Guide [53] and the standard ISO 31000 [67].
This methodology derives from the evaluation of occupational health at work. Here, it outlines practical
prevention measures based on workers’ effectiveness and satisfaction [56]. It is particularly useful
for making risk prevention faster, ensuring cost reduction and procedure efficiency, and includes
the contributions of the workers. For this reason, this general approach is also suggested by the
standard ISO 31000 [67] for risk management. Similarly, the ICCROM [53] applies this scheme to
risk management for heritage preservation. In this case, the risks vary from sudden and catastrophic
events (i.e., earthquakes, floods, fires, and armed conflict) to cumulative processes (i.e., chemical,
physical, or biological degradation). The ICCROM scheme somewhat complexifies the SOBANE
strategy, introducing the following phases: (i) analysis of the context; (ii) identification of the risks;
(iii) analysis of the information sources; (iv) evaluation of the magnitude of risks; (v) treatment of
risks; and (vi) monitoring of the results. Compared to the SOBANE strategy, phases (i) and (ii) refer
to “screening”, phases (iii) and (iv) to “observation”, phase (vi) to “analysis”, and phases (v) and (vi)
to “expertise”. Here, general suggestions and examples are given, to be applied in a whole range
of cultural heritage elements, ranging from a book to a sculpture, a museum collection, a fresco,
a building, an archeological site, a cultural landscape, and so on. Furthermore, the aspects related to
human comfort are not considered. In another case, a book helps collection managers in the decision
process regarding climate risks [54]. This procedure is quite complex for autonomous adoption by the
museum attendants because several steps (e.g., building physics exploration, weighting of the climate
specifications) require specialized technical skills. Thus, museum attendants need the support of
designers, architects, engineers and building simulators to apply this methodology to a real case study.
Otherwise, this procedure evaluates only theoretical levels of human comfort, excluding the perception
of uses connected with questionnaires and interviews. Finally, the procedure must be adapted to each
local legislative framework, and each set of heritage features, internal policies and procedures.
As introduced before, the present study defines a specific SOBANE strategy for the management
of environmental risks in the museums hosted in historic buildings, considering both conservation and
human comfort issues (Section 4) [55,56]. The original SOBANE strategy is improved, combining a
series of cross-disciplinary elements, based on standards, policies, guidelines, procedures, best-practices
and tools for balancing preventive conservation [11,12,15,16,25,29,32,33,36–38,40–44,46,52,68],
environmental sustainability [27,66] and human comfort [48,55]. The new concept and the needs of the
contemporary museums are considered. For this purpose, this instrument is developed with the direct
support of the museum attendants (e.g., conservators, heritage authorities and curators), to refine their
skills and to satisfy their daily needs in optimizing the decision-making purposes, prioritizing the
interventions and lowering internal costs [55]. The museum staff are explicitly asked not to consider
complex simulations or calculation tools for reducing specialized skills, costs, and evaluation times.
This new methodology brings the following benefits: (i) to prolong the lifetime of cultural heritage
objects, collections, and buildings; (ii) to evaluate the indoor environmental performances; (iii) to
optimize the preventive conservation actions; (iv) to recognize the risks for heritage preservation and
human comfort; (v) to assist the decision makers during refurbishment and management interventions;
(vi) to define suitable maintenance and management procedures; and (vii) to minimize the economic
costs. This approach is applied to the Pinacoteca di Brera in Milan (Italy), to validate its suitability and
its applicability in a real case study (Section 3).
3. The Case Study: Pinacoteca di Brera

The Pinacoteca di Brera in Milan is one of the most important national fine art museums in Italy
(Figure 1a). It expresses well the situation of a national museum inserted in a historic building and
converted into an expositive center. The museum is sited in the center of Milan, a city characterized by
a “multi-pollutants situation” [29]. It is housed in a medieval building, which has undergone several
changes and expansions over the centuries [69–71]. To understand the current situation, it is important
to introduce a brief history of its transformation. The name “Brera” derives from the word “braida”,
which indicates the green area where the original building was erected as a convent and a church (1178).
After its expropriation, the old convent became first a “Collegium” for young people’s education,
and later, a University (1571) [70]. A new building was added to host new functions. The construction
was assigned to different famous Italian architects (Martino Bassi, 1591; Francesco Maria Richini,
1615–1658; Giuseppe Piermarini, 1779–1780) [70] who gave both a Baroque and a Neoclassic style.
Its cultural function was improved thanks to the Empress Maria Teresa of Austria (1773) who included
several institutions, such as an astronomical observatory, a library (Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense),
a research center (Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere), an Academy of Arts (Accademia di Brera),
a botanical garden and an art gallery (Pinacoteca di Brera) [69]. The presence of the Academy of
Fine Art influenced particularly the establishment of the Pinacoteca, a fine art museum open upon
request of the public for assisting academic students as a complement to training activities (1789) [69].
The collection of paintings increased thanks to the Napoleonic expropriations, as well as legacies,
donations and bequests. This required a complete reorganization of the gallery (Andrea Appiani,
1807) [69]. In 1882, the Pinacoteca became independent from the Academy. For this reason, several
interventions were implemented to give it a modern image (Piero Portaluppi, 1934), including [71]:
(i) construction of a warehouse and a photo archive; (ii) opening of the original skylights, circular
windows and canopies to have natural light; (iii) closure of all the windows (except those placed in the
entrance corridor); (iv) chronologic re-organization of the collection; and (v) renovation of the exhibits.
During the Second World War, the roof was destroyed, and few floors were smashed (1943). Thus,
the post-war restoration (Piero Portaluppi, 1946–1950) foresaw several interventions according to the
principle of the Modern Movement of Architecture, such as: (i) static consolidation of the building;
(ii) reorganization of the exhibition and the offices; (iii) reconstruction of the original environmental
of the Mocchirolo Chapel; (iv) painting of the walls with a bright coating; (v) refurbishment of the
bombarded roof through the insertion of reinforced concrete instead of wooden trusses; (vi) insertion
of curtains and skylights to allow natural light; (vii) addition of artificial lighting systems above
the curtains; (viii) insertion of radiant panels into the floors; and (ix) selection of rare and precious
materials (e.g., marble for floors, plinths, door jambs and internal columns). In the same years, a “comb
gallery” was designed to host the temporary exhibition (Franco Albini, 1946–1950) [71]. The lack of
maintenance funds caused a general decay (e.g., water infiltration from the roof, safety problems on
electrical systems and wall cracking) [70]. The gallery was closed to the public (1974), and reopened to
host new functions (e.g., a bookshop in the hall, a bar in the lodge, two climate control storages and
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 23

the offices for the Heritage Authority) (Alberico and Ludovico Belgiojoso, 1978) [71] (Figure 4). Then,
the existing
with curtains and
glass-chambers and skylights
UV-filterswere replaced
(Gregotti andwith glass-chambers
Associates, and[71].
1985–1991) UV-filters
Finally,(Gregotti and
natural and
Associates, 1985–1991)
artificial light [71]. Finally,
were integrated natural
through and artificial
the insertion light were
of electronic integrated
regulators through
and the insertion
metal halide lamps
of electronic regulators and metal halide lamps (Piero Castiglioni, 1985–1991). An air conditioning
(Piero Castiglioni, 1985–1991). An air conditioning system was installed only in the Napoleonic salons
systemGasparini,
(Paolo was installed only
1990) in the Napoleonic salons (Paolo Gasparini, 1990) [71].
[71].
(a) (b)
Figure 1.1. The
ThePinacoteca
Pinacotecadi Brera in Milan:
di Brera (a) outside
in Milan: view; (b)
(a) outside inside
view; (b)view of the
inside permanent
view exhibition.
of the permanent
exhibition.
The art collection contains works of several Italian artists (e.g., Raphael, Caravaggio, Andrea
Mantegna,
The artGiovanni
collection Bellini, Tiziano,
contains works Veronese,
of several Giovanni Fattori (e.g.,
Italian artists and Canaletto) as well as of Andrea
Raphael, Caravaggio, foreign
painters (e.g., El Greco, Rubens, Van Dyck and Rembrant) (Figure 1b). The
Mantegna, Giovanni Bellini, Tiziano, Veronese, Giovanni Fattori and Canaletto) as well as of foreign collection is made upof
precious
painters paintings (oil, gouache
(e.g., El Greco, Rubens,and Vanpencil
Dyckonand wood, textile and
Rembrant) paper)
(Figure andThe
1b). sculptures
collection (wood and wax),
is made upof
from Gothic to Modern epochs (Figure 4). Their conservation requires severe,
precious paintings (oil, gouache and pencil on wood, textile and paper) and sculptures (wood and non-homogeneous and
constant indoor conditions (Table 3). The modifications realized over
wax), from Gothic to Modern epochs (Figure 4). Their conservation requires severe, non- the centuries led to a complex
situation that has
homogeneous andnecessitated
constant indoor the conditions
definition of a risk
(Table 3).management strategy,
The modifications to balance
realized over the thecenturies
need of
preventive conservation and human comfort. The museum is selected because
led to a complex situation that has necessitated the definition of a risk management strategy, to it is representative
of different
balance aspects
the need typical of complex
of preventive conservationinternational
and human museums,
comfort.such as: (i) location
The museum is selectedin abecause
city with it
a multi-pollutant
is representative ofsituation;
different (ii) listedtypical
aspects building converted
of complex into museum;
international (iii) presence
museums, such as:of (i)different
location
architectonical
in stiles, building features,
a city with a multi-pollutant situation;constructive techniques
(ii) listed building and materials;
converted into museum; (iv) multifunctional
(iii) presence of
spaces (e.g.,
different museum, library,
architectonical university,
stiles, building bookshop,
features,etc.) and activities
constructive (e.g., conservation,
techniques and materials; restoration,
(iv)
didactics, cultural events, etc.); (v) coexistence of historical and new exhibits
multifunctional spaces (e.g., museum, library, university, bookshop, etc.) and activities (e.g., and display cases;
(vi) important restoration,
conservation, national collection
didactics,with different
cultural typologies
events, etc.); of
(v)artefacts;
coexistenceand of (vii) high fluctuations
historical and new
of visits.and
exhibits Thisdisplay
complex situation
cases; requires anational
(vi) important preventive conservation
collection and human
with different comfort
typologies of program,
artefacts;
to optimize the decision-making processes, and to prioritize the problems.
and (vii) high fluctuations of visits. This complex situation requires a preventive conservation and
human comfort program, to optimize the decision-making processes, and to prioritize the problems.
4. Methodology
4. Methodology
The SOBANE strategy for environmental risk management in museum buildings is based on four
levelsThe
of intervention [55]: for environmental risk management in museum buildings is based on
SOBANE strategy
four
• levels of intervention
“Screening”, [55]:
a quick diagnosis of the building and the collection for identifying the most important
• potential risks;a quick diagnosis of the building and the collection for identifying the most
“Screening”,
• “Observation”,
important potentiala general
risks; study for recognizing causative factors and correlated environmental
• risks, and for planning
“Observation”, simple
a general studysolutions to solve causative
for recognizing urgent injuries;
factors and correlated environmental
• risks, and for
“Analysis”, anplanning simple
instrumental solutions
inspection to solve conservation
of heritage urgent injuries;
and human comfort for quantifying
• “Analysis”,
potential an instrumental
damage, microclimaticinspection of heritage
problems and causes ofconservation
risks; and human comfort for
• quantifying potential damage, microclimatic problems and causes of risks;
“Expertise”, a systematic study for developing appropriate guidelines to prioritize
• “Expertise”,
the a systematic study for developing appropriate guidelines to prioritize the
interventions.
interventions.
At the end of each level, the operative staff decide whether to pursue the investigations at the
subsequent level. As introduced before (Section 2), this method is applied to the Pinacoteca di
At the end of each level, the operative staff decide whether to pursue the investigations at the
(Figure 2 level. As introduced before (Section 2), this method is applied to the Pinacoteca di Brera,
subsequent
to plan
). simple retrofit and maintenance strategies. The methodology is detailed below (Figure 2).
Figure 2. The SOBANE methodology for assessing the environmental risk in the museum buildings.
buildings.
4.1. Screening Level

The “screening level”
The “screening level”isisaageneral
generaldiagnosis
diagnosisofof thethe building
building andandthethe collection,
collection, for for identifying
identifying the
the potential environmental risks. The methodology is founded on
potential environmental risks. The methodology is founded on the performance indicator system the performance indicator system
method
method [55,68],
[55,68], which considers 100
which considers 100 parameters
parameters dedicated
dedicated to to heritage
heritage conservation,
conservation, energy
energy efficiency
efficiency
and
and human
humancomfort.
comfort.The Thefinal
finalscore
scoreidentifies
identifies a “qualitative
a “qualitative performance
performance indicator” (hereinafter,
indicator” QPI)
(hereinafter,
based
QPI) based on the presence or the absence of an element [68]. The parameters to be evaluated the
on the presence or the absence of an element [68]. The parameters to be evaluated for assessing for
environmental and energy quality
assessing the environmental in museum
and energy qualitybuildings
in museum include: (i) respect
buildings of standards
include: (i) respect for
ofpreventive
standards
conservation
for preventive and human comfort
conservation and (i.e.,
humanlightcomfort
level control, separate
(i.e., light levellight control,
control, UV and/or
separate light IR radiation
control, UV
control, strategies of annual energy exposition control, air temperature
and/or IR radiation control, strategies of annual energy exposition control, air temperature and/or and/or relative humidity
control); (ii) catalysts
relative humidity (i.e., (ii)
control); light, temperature,
catalysts dust);
(i.e., light, (iii) glare dust);
temperature, (i.e., direct or reflected
(iii) glare glare
(i.e., direct control);
or reflected
(iv) colors (i.e., study of temperature of light sources, color rending index > 80,
glare control); (iv) colors (i.e., study of temperature of light sources, color rending index > 80, efficacy efficacy of chromatic
design for users);
of chromatic design(v) for
pollutants
users); (i.e., control strategies
(v) pollutants for atmospheric
(i.e., control strategies for and indoor contamination,
atmospheric and indoor
pests
contamination, pests control strategies); (vi) sound (i.e., control of sound and noise); (vii)systems;
control strategies); (vi) sound (i.e., control of sound and noise); (vii) indoor monitoring indoor
(viii) buildings envelope and features (i.e., passive strategies, solar orientation, building shape, wind
orientation); (ix) heating, ventilation and air conditioning (hereinafter, HVAC) and electric systems
(i.e., control of efficiency of HVAC, electrical and/or lighting systems); (x) renewable energy sources
(i.e., photovoltaics or solar thermal systems); (xi) energy policies (i.e., energy label); (xii) maintenance
and management procedures (i.e., handling, storage, transport, cleaning, control of free access, integrate
pests management, emergency); (xiii) trainings (conservation, energy efficiency); and (xiv) public
involvement (i.e., information programs for visitors). The evaluation of these parameters is supported
by the literature review and on-site visits with the museum staff. First, the historical review permits us
to plan the visit and to define several questions for recognizing the most important environmental
risks. Then, the on-site visit with the museum staff gives the data for the QPI calculation. The final QPI
is structured into four levels: (i) initial level with a score < 30%; (ii) intermediate level with a score
between 30% and 60%; (iii) good level with a score between 61% and 90%; (iv) and excellent level with
a score > 90%. The buildings with “initial” or “intermediate” levels require more detailed analysis,
referred to as the “observation level” (Section 4.2).
4.2. Observation Level

The “observation level” must be applied only to buildings with low energy and environmental
performances (<60%). This evaluation scheme is a general risk assessment of the indoor climate,
according to the Standard EN 15759 [37]. It is structured in three phases [55]: (i) the “Exhibit
Conservation Performance Program” (hereinafter, ECPP) that recognizes risk types and agents
of deterioration for ensuring the preservation of buildings and collections, ranking their relative
importance; (ii) the “People Comfort Performance Program” (hereinafter, PCPP) that outlines
the microclimatic standards for human comfort; and (iii) the “Museum Performance Program”
(hereinafter, MPP) that identifies the areas with environmental risks, defining a possible balance
between conservation and comfort requirements.
The ECPP considers historical and actual indoor climates (called also “climate specifications for
conservation”) [55]. Regarding the “historical indoor climate”, heritage buildings and collections
adapt themselves to long-term acclimation processes, as demonstrated by the standard EN 15757 [35].
Similarly, several objects are also preserved in unheated conditions (e.g., churches or old palaces)
or with hygrothermal fluctuations [52]. Thoughtfully, the “historical indoor climate” is not harmful
for the preservation of artworks [37,52]. Thus, it is not considered in the present methodology.
The definition of the “climate specifications for conservation” considers the response of the building
and the collection to the actual environmental conditions, as request by the “New Orleans Charter” [51].
The response of the building to the environment refers to the “building classes”, defined by the
ASHRAE [48] for distinguishing the environmental fluctuations during natural seasonal variations
(Table 1). In opposite to the traditional logic that requires severe indoor conditions for avoiding
climate risks, the ASHRAE introduces specifications for short-term fluctuations, long-term fluctuations,
and permissible levels of indoor dry bulb air temperature (Ta ) and air relative humidity (RH).
This handbook presents four “museum climate classes”, ranging from Class AA (precision control)
to Class D (relaxed control), related to the fragility of the artifacts. These progressive “categories of
control” are defined for each “building class” according to the building features (i.e., typical building
construction, type and use) and system characteristics (i.e., system used, limits of the climate control) [48].
Each class corresponds to specific ranges of Ta and RH naturally provided by the building (Table 1).
Data to be analyzed for defining the “building classes” are [55]: (i) history of the museum (e.g., age,
additions, refurbishments); (ii) constructive features (e.g., localization, owner, typological, structural,
dimensional and constructive data); (iii) conservative conditions (e.g., restorations, potential damage);
(iv) indoor activities (e.g., photographic laboratories, bookshop, shops); and (v) maintenance procedures
(e.g., handlings, cleaning, preservation, restoration, maintenance programs) and management policies
(e.g., use, level of use, level of accessibility, opening times, number and frequency of visitors). Besides,
assessing the response of the collection to the environment refers to a detailed knowledge of the type
of artifacts (e.g., reference codes, localization, hierarchy, historical data), the conservative conditions,
the management policies (e.g., care, display and storage procedures), and the standard levels for
heritage conservation. In parallel, the PCPP evaluates the microclimatic conditions for human comfort
in museum, referring to the existing literature and standards [39,41,52]. Finally, the data collected
are compared in the MPP, to verify the possible compromises between the opposite exigencies for
caring and valorizing cultural heritage. MPP considers the following environmental parameters:
light level (E), maximum annual energy exposition (EE), maximum ultraviolet radiation (UVmax ),
daylight factor (DF), glare index (G), color temperature index (TI ), color rendering index (Ra ), indoor
Ta , mean radiant temperature (Tmr ), operative temperature (To ), surface temperature (Ts ), indoor RH,
temperature difference (∆T), RH difference (∆RH), air velocity (υa ), indoor concentration of pollutants
(gases and solid), and air-changes (r). The range for each parameter refers to actual standards for
heritage conservation and human comfort in museum buildings [32,33]. Three levels of compatibility
are recognized: (i) full compatibility; (ii) partial compatibility; and (iii) incompatibility. A more
in-depth diagnosis and monitoring (“analysis level”, Section 4.3) is necessary in the last two cases
to discover the causes of risks, to establish a possible interrelationship among the problems, and to
propose appropriate interventions.
Table 1. Potential “building classes” of “climate control” in the Pinacoteca di Brera: scheme elaborated
from the ASHRAE Handbook [48].
Limit of Class of
Category Building Building Type of Building
System Used Climate Possible
of Control Class Construction Building Use
Control Control
Staff isolated
Heavy Ducted
Finished rooms, gift
masonry or low-level heat,
house, shops. B (if
composite Summer
church, Walk-through benign
walls with cooling, on/off
Partial meeting visitations climate)
IV plaster control, DX Basic HVAC
control house, store, only. C (if mild
Tight cooling, some
inn, some Limited winters)
construction, humidification,
office, occupancy. D
storm reheat
buildings No winter
windows capability
use
Special
Metal wall heating,
construction, cooling, AA
No
interior rooms Vaults, and humidity Special A
Climate occupancy,
VI with sealed storage control with constant Cold
controlled access by
walls and rooms, cases precision environments Cold
appointments
controlled constant Dry
occupancy stability
control
4.3. Analysis Level

The “analysis level” is based on the instrumental investigation of the indoor environmental
conditions, to identify and to rank the potential sources of conservative and expositive problems,
through the correlation between current damage and microclimatic ranges. It is structured in the
following phases [55]: (i) short-term monitoring (hereinafter, STM) using spot measuring devices for
underlining the areas with environmental risks; (ii) identification of “areas with potential conservative
risks”; (iii) long-term monitoring (hereinafter, LTM) using continuous recording devices in the areas at
risks; and (iv) analysis of users’ comfort.
STM refers to the entire museum. To seek the existence of spatial gradients, it is implemented on
a horizontal (5 m) and vertical (1.5 m) grid [32]. The minimum indoor parameters to be monitored are
light (E, UVmax , infrared radiance), temperature (Ta , ∆T), and RH (RH, ∆RH). In this case, low-costs
and high accuracy devices are used, to be accessible for the museum technicians (Almemo® 28909-9
data logger, equipped with light a flux FLA603LSM4 probe, a luminance FLA603LDM2 probe, and a
hygrothermal digital sensor FHAD 46-C2). All the minimum indoor parameters are monitored.
The sensors are positioned far from heat sources (e.g., incidence of solar radiation, windows, technical
appliances), and air flows (e.g., doors, windows, movement of visitors). Direct contact with internal
surfaces is also avoided. STM is repeated during winter and summer, to verify the seasonal gradients
and the deviation between actual indoor conditions and standards ranges. The presence of spatial
gradients higher than the maximum standard value (∆Tmax < 2 ◦ C; ∆RHmax < 5%) identifies “areas
with potential conservative risks” [32]. These areas are highlighted graphically in a “conservative map”.
Here, a LTM is conducted for three years, to individuate the causes of environmental vulnerability.
LTM monitors the following parameters: light (E, luminance), temperature (outdoor and indoor
Ta , daily and seasonal ∆T), RH (outdoor and indoor RH, daily and seasonal ∆RH), and air quality
(carbon dioxide CO2 , air change rate, number of visitors). The same acquisition system of the STM
is used. The campaign is conducted during summer (June–July), autumn (October–December) and
winter (January–February) for two years. The timestep acquisition is 30 minutes, as defined by the
standards [32,33]. E is monitored for several typical days during the museum opening (8.30–18.30).
Luminance is evaluated from specific points of view for the observer on the same days (i.e., in front of
a paintings or exhibits). Similarly, CO2 concentration is analyzed during two typical opening days
(weekend during the year and holidays), with a timestep of 1 hour. CO2 concentration is not observed
during the closing day (Monday) because it is only a comfort indicator, not a damage indicator [29].
The comfort analysis is conducted via interviews with three categories of users (museum staff, single
Sustainability
visitors and2020, 12, x FOR
groups) for PEER REVIEWthe satisfaction of users regarding climate perception [72]. Several
evaluating 10 of 23
“structured questions” are defined to have an overview of visual (e.g., daylight design, artificial
visual
lighting (e.g., daylight
design, design,glare,
discomfort artificial
colorlighting
design),design, discomfort
hygrothermal (e.g.,glare, color
thermal design),
levels, hygrothermal
hygrometric level,
(e.g.,
hygrothermal variations), and acoustic comfort (e.g., sound level, acoustic design), as(e.g.,
thermal levels, hygrometric level, hygrothermal variations), and acoustic comfort wellsound
as of
level, acoustic
air quality (e.g.,design),
presence as of
well as of air quality
contaminants, dust,(e.g., presence
pests). of contaminants,
Then, specific suggestionsdust,
frompests).
people Then,
are
specific suggestions
considered (Section 5.3). from people are considered (Section 5.3).
4.4. Expertise
Expertise Level
The “expertise
“expertise level”
level”isisfocused
focusedononsolving
solving specific
specific environmental
environmental problems
problems withwith low-energy
low-energy and
and low-impact strategies, mainly related to maintenance, management and low-cost
low-impact strategies, mainly related to maintenance, management and low-cost interventions for interventions
for balancing
balancing heritage
heritage conservation
conservation andand human
human comfort
comfort requirements
requirements [55].[55].
TheThe results
results obtained
obtained in
in the
the previous steps are synthetized in specific guidelines for museum staff and visitors.
previous steps are synthetized in specific guidelines for museum staff and visitors. Besides, specific Besides,
specific audits
audits and testsand tests
to be to be planned
planned are to
are defined defined to quantify
quantify complexcomplex environmental
environmental risks. risks.
Results and
5. Results and Discussion
Discussion
The results of this study in the Pinacoteca di Brera

Brera are
are reported
reported below,
below,divided
dividedfor
foreach
eachphase.
phase.
5.1. Screening
Level
This screening
This screening isis conducted
conductedas asaathree-hour
three-hour“guided
“guidedtour”tour”ininthe the Pinacoteca,
Pinacoteca, with
with thethe support
support of
of the
the staff
staff (director,
(director, restorersand
restorers andgeneral
generalstaff).
staff).AAprevious
previousliterature
literaturereview
reviewonon the
the history
history ofof the
the
museum, from
museum, fromthethearchitectonic
architectonicand andartistic points
artistic pointsof of
view, permits
view, permitsus tousplan the on-site
to plan visit.visit.
the on-site The QPI
The
is analyzed by the auditor during this visit. The screening is documented through
QPI is analyzed by the auditor during this visit. The screening is documented through a photographic a photographic
campaign. The
campaign. ThePinacoteca
Pinacotecaobtains
obtainsan an
intermediate
intermediateperformance
performance (50.0%), with an
(50.0%), environmental
with quality
an environmental
of 52.9% and an energy quality of 43.3%. Light quality (50.0%) testifies the
quality of 52.9% and an energy quality of 43.3%. Light quality (50.0%) testifies the importance importance of natural light
of
for Italian
natural postwar
light museums,
for Italian postwarbutmuseums,
also the difficulties
but also the of difficulties
upgrading of theupgrading
project to new requirements.
the project to new
The hygrothermal
requirements. The(50.0%) and air (58.8%)
hygrothermal (50.0%)quality
and airshows
(58.8%)the quality
difficulty of obtaining
shows indoor of
the difficulty stability and
obtaining
air pollutants control, also using HVAC systems. Acoustic quality is not important
indoor stability and air pollutants control, also using HVAC systems. Acoustic quality is not (33.3%). The results
are reported
important below The
(33.3%). (Figure 3). are reported below (Figure 3).
results
Figure 3. Evaluation
Evaluation of
of energy
energy and
and environmental
environmental quality
quality in
in the
the Pinacoteca
Pinacoteca di
di Brera using the
performance indicators system.
The total quality is lower than 60%, and the Pinacoteca is scored as “intermediate level”,
requiring a more detailed analysis to evaluate its potential environmental risks (Section 5.2).
The total quality is lower than 60%, and the Pinacoteca is scored as “intermediate level”, requiring
a more detailed analysis to evaluate its potential environmental risks (Section 5.2).
5.2.
5.2. Observation
ObservationLevel
Level
The
The ECPP
ECPP is is based
based on on aa deep
deep studystudy of of architectonical,
architectonical, artistic
artistic andand operative
operative data,data, toto delineate
delineate
the
the response to the building and the collection to the actual environmental conditions. Dataanalyzed
response to the building and the collection to the actual environmental conditions. Data analyzed
for
for the Pinacoteca refers to museum history, constructive features, conservative conditions, internal
the Pinacoteca refers to museum history, constructive features, conservative conditions, internal
activities,
activities, maintenance
maintenance and and management
management programs. programs. First, First,deep
deephistorical
historicalresearch
research isis conducted
conducted to to
study the evolution and the consistency of the Pinacoteca since its
study the evolution and the consistency of the Pinacoteca since its foundation. This information is foundation. This information is
integrated
integrated withwith thethe constructive
constructive features
features and and thethe conservative
conservative conditions
conditions of of the
the building
building and and the
the
collection,
collection, referring to the National Center for Documentation (SIRBec–Sistema Informativo dei Beni
referring to the National Center for Documentation (SIRBec–Sistema Informativo dei Beni
Culturali
Culturali di di Regione
RegioneLombardia)
Lombardia) [73][73] which
which registers
registers the most
the most importantimportant information
information on localon local
heritage.
heritage. Additional data on conservative conditions, indoor activities,
Additional data on conservative conditions, indoor activities, fruition and management policies are fruition and management
policies
provided arebyprovided
the museum by the museum
staff. From this staff. From this information,
information, the ASHRAE the ASHRAE
potential potential
“category “category
of control” for
of control” for each “building class” [48] is defined
each “building class” [48] is defined for the Pinacoteca (Table 1). for the Pinacoteca (Table 1).
There
There isis aalarge
largedifference
difference in in the
the climate
climate conditions
conditions of of the
the museum
museum and and the
the storage
storage room.
room. Storage
Storage
rooms
rooms are in safety conditions, protected by passive (e.g., sealed walls, occupancy control) and active
are in safety conditions, protected by passive (e.g., sealed walls, occupancy control) and active
(e.g.,
(e.g., dedicate
dedicate HVACHVAC control)
control) measures.
measures. This This situation
situation corresponds
corresponds to to the
the ASHRAE
ASHRAE buildingbuilding class
class VIVI
(climate
(climate controlled),
controlled), with with possible
possible classes
classes of of “climate
“climate control”
control” AA,AA, A, A, Cool,
Cool, Cold
Cold or or Dry
Dry [48].
[48]. On
On the
the
contrary,
contrary, museum
museum rooms rooms havehave partial
partial climate
climate control,
control, with
with aa contrast
contrast between
between building
building features,
features, uses
uses
and
and HVAC systems. This situation corresponds to the ASHRAE building class IV (partialcontrol),
HVAC systems. This situation corresponds to the ASHRAE building class IV (partial control),
with possible classes
with possible classesofof“climate
“climatecontrol”
control” B, B,
C, C, or[48].
or D D [48]. In fact,
In fact, the museum
the museum is located
is located in an
in an old old
palace
palace with several
with several heritageheritage constraints.
constraints. The original
The original building building was transformed
was transformed into a museum
into a museum without
without guaranteeing a strict indoor climate control (Section 3). The
guaranteeing a strict indoor climate control (Section 3). The risks are improved by the complex building risks are improved by the
complex
functionsbuilding
(Figure 4a) functions
(Section(Figure 4a) (Section
3). In addition, the 3). In addition,
Pinacoteca is anthe Pinacoteca
important is an
Italian important
museum, withItalian
high
museum, with high fluxes of visits (more than 400,000 persons per year,
fluxes of visits (more than 400,000 persons per year, an average of 1,100 persons per day), scholar an average of 1,100 persons
per day), scholar
education programs education programs
and touristic and touristic
activities. activities.the
Furthermore, Furthermore, the museum
museum collection collection
is classified intois
classified
homogeneous into typologies
homogeneous typologies
of objects, related of objects,
to their related
inherent to theirand
sensitivity inherent sensitivity
vulnerability defined andby
vulnerability defined by conservation
conservation standards [35–38] (Figure 4b). standards [35–Error! Reference source not found.] (Figure 4b).
Figure 4. (a) internal building functions and (b) typology of objects of the Pinacoteca di Brera.
Figure 4. (a) internal building functions and (b) typology of objects of the Pinacoteca di Brera.
The conservation levels for each typology of artifacts are defined by national [31–33] and
The conservation levels for each typology of artifacts are defined by national [31–33] and
international [35–38] standards. Similarly, the comfort levels for each indoor activity refer to the
international [35–Error! Reference source not found.] standards. Similarly, the comfort levels for
existing literature and standards [40,41,52]. The compatibility between these requirements is reported
each indoor activity refer to the existing literature and standards [40,41,52]. The compatibility
below (Table 2).
between these requirements is reported below (Table 2).
Table 2. Compatibility between preventive conservation and human comfort requirements [55].
Standard Requirements
Parameter Specific Data Preventive Human
Compatibility
Conservation Comfort
Light-sensitive <50 I
E [lux] Less light-sensitive <200 >300 P
Not light-sensitive >300 P
Light-sensitive <30 F
UVmax [MW/lm] Less light-sensitive <75 - F
Not light-sensitive <200 F
Light-sensitive <200 F
EE [Kluxh/year] Less light-sensitive <650 - F
Not light-sensitive - F
DF [%] 0.5–2 >2 P
G [-] - 1.15 F
TI [K] - 3000–4000 F
Ra [-] - >85 F
Ta [◦ C] 18–24 20–26 F
Daily ±2 F
∆Ta [◦ C] -
Seasonal ±9 F
Winter 18–20 F
To [◦ C] -
Summer 22–25 F
On walls 14–25 F
Ts [◦ C] -
On floors 19–28 F
Tmr [◦ C] - 17–21 F
RH [%] 20–45 35 ÷ 45 P
Daily ±3–±5 F
∆RH [%] -
Seasonal ±10 F
va [m/sec] 0.1–0.25 - F
SOx [mg/m3 ] <10 F
NOx [mg/m3 ] <10 - F
Gaseous pollutant O3 [mg/m3 ] <2 F
emissions CO [%] - <0.003 F
CO2 [%] - <0.15 F
Formaldehyde, formic acids,
- - F
benzene, PM10 [µg/m3 ]
Eff 85% on
Solid contaminants [-] - F
Eurovent 4/5
R [l/s people] - >7.8 F
Microbes, bacteria and fungi [CFU/m3 ] - Absence F
Mold, pollen [-] - Absence F
Pests [-] - Absence F
Radon [Bq/m3 ] - - F
I = Incompatibility P = Partial compatibility F = Full compatibility.
Several parameters show “full compatibility” (F) (Table 2) between heritage conservation and
human comfort. On the contrary, E, Ta and RH can be potential hazards as regards the “partial
compatibility” (P) or the “incompatibility” (I) between the two requirements. To verify the possible
risks, a deep study is realized on specific typologies of objects hosted in the Pinacoteca. The outcomes
are presented below (Table 3), adding also the results of the LTM (Section 5.3).
Table 3. Comparison between standard requirements and real long-term conditions for all the objects
inserted in the Pinacoteca di Brera.
Standard Requirements for MPP Real Conditions

Category of Object (LTM)
Conservation Human Comfort
Emax UVmax Ta RH Emin Ta RH E Ta RH
[lux] [µW/lm] [◦ C] [%] [lux] [◦ C] [%] [lux] [◦ C] [%]
Watercolor gouache
Storage room: no
pencil charcoal 50 75 19–24 45–60 50 20 50
occupancy
pastel
Painting on canvas, 16–21 W 45–55 W
150 75 19–24 40–55 50
wood, panel 25–30 S 55–65 S
Wax sculpture 150 75 <18 - 300–400 20–24 55–60
Stone terracotta - - 15–25 20–60 >300 19–26 45–55 300–400 16–26 55–60
Bronze - - 15–25 20–60 300–400 16–26 55–60
Frescoes 150 75 10–24 55–65 200–250 22–24 50–60
Painting on
150 75 10–24 45–50 300 22–24 50–55
detached walls
W = Winter S = Summer.
The more fragile artefacts are watercolors, gouaches, pencils, pastels and charcoals on paper.
Their conservation is completely opposite to the human comfort requirements. These artworks are
conserved in storage rooms at controlled environmental conditions (E = 50 lux; UVmax = 75 MW/lm;
Ta = 20 ◦ C; RH = 50%), and are accessible only by appointment. Thus, they are in safety conditions.
Furthermore, precious paintings, constituted mainly by oil paintings (on panel, canvas, plywood,
copper, paper, board), temperas (on paper and canvas) and mixed materials (e.g., wall paintings,
frescoes detached and transferred to panels and canvas), are fragile artefacts. In this case, there are
several risks mainly related to the standard light levels for conservation (E < 150 lux) and human
comfort (E > 300 lux). Wax sculptures also have thermal risks related to heritage protection (Ta < 18 ◦ C)
and human comfort (Ta = 20 ◦ C). On the contrary, inorganic objects (e.g., stone, marble, bronze and
terracotta statues, vases, cenotaphs) have a high resistance to indoor conditions. For this reason,
they can be placed freely along the museum, to create visual centers. For each typology of artworks,
the areas with environmental risks for heritage conservation and human comfort conditions are
evaluated (MPP). Here, an analytical study is necessary (analysis level, Section 5.3).
5.3. Analysis Level

STM of environmental conditions shows several problems. The original project of Piero Castiglioni
(1994) focused on the integration of natural and artificial light. It was devoted to enhancing the aesthetic
and chromatic qualities of the exhibition, through the introduction of electronic regulators and metal
halide vapor lamps. To improve the visibility of artworks, he employed higher light levels than the
conservative standards [22,23,26,28], putting anti-UV and anti-IR filters on artefacts to guarantee their
safeguard. The design project changed over the time, modifying the original criteria [71]. The STM
conducted using the defined procedure (Section 4.3) confirmed the presence of E levels lightly greater
than international standards [30,32]. The average value is 130 lux, lower than the standard requirements
(150 lux), but several values are in the range 300–500 lux. Ta shows a stability in the range 20–22 ◦ C,
with an average value of 21 ◦ C. This thermal condition causes risks only for the wax collection
(Table 3). On the contrary, there are several RH fluctuations, but in the range of 40–55% over the years.
The hygrothermal levels for a typical day are shown below (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Results of short-term

Figure 5. short-term monitoring
monitoring of
of TTaa and RH on a typical day in winter and summer.
summer.
In
In summer,
summer, the the thermal
thermalvalues valuesincrease
increaseprogressively
progressivelyfrom from thethe entrance
entrance (rooms
(rooms I–XII)I–XII) to the
to the last
last
rooms (XXX–XXVIII) and, conversely, the hygrometric values decrease along the same path.path.
rooms (XXX–XXVIII) and, conversely, the hygrometric values decrease along the same The
The average ◦
average Ta inTathe in the
firstfirst
roomsrooms is 20–21
is 20–21 °C, C, and andthe theRH RHisisaround
around 55%,55%, optimal
optimal valuesvalues both both forfor
safeguarding and comfort. The average T in the last rooms is 30 ◦ C, with peaks of 33 ◦ C, and the RH is
safeguarding and comfort. The average T a a in the last rooms is 30 °C, with peaks of 33 °C, and the RH
around
is around 45–50%.
45–50%. TheThe opposite
opposite situation occurs
situation in winter:
occurs Ta decreases
in winter: Ta decreasesfrom the
from first
the(average Ta = 21T◦aC)=
first (average
to
21the
°C)last
to (average Ta = 18–19
the last (average
◦
Ta =C)18–19
rooms. °C)RH fluctuations
rooms. depend on depend
RH fluctuations high fluxes
on ofhighvisitors
fluxes and ofdidactic
visitors
activities.
and didactic activities. Three museum rooms have a “conservative risk” (rooms XXIV, XXXVILTM
Three museum rooms have a “conservative risk” (rooms XXIV, XXXVI and XXXVII). and
shows
XXXVII). similar
LTMresults
showstosimilarSTM. E respects
results the international
to STM. E respects the standard requirements
international standard < 150 lux) [30,32],
(E requirements (E <
with average levels of 130–140 lux. Luminance monitoring,
150 lux) [30,32], with average levels of 130–140 lux. Luminance monitoring, also supported by the also supported by the comfort analysis,
shows
comfortthe absence
analysis, of glare,
shows thanks to
the absence of the
glare, presence
thanks to of the
window
presence filters and anti-glare
of window filters andlightanti-glare
sources.
On
lightthe contrary,
sources. Onfor theacontrary,
large partfor ofathe two
large years,
part hygrothermal
of the conditions were
two years, hygrothermal beyond were
conditions the standard
beyond
ranges (T
the standard a = 20 ◦ C; RH = 50%) [32]. This data highlights the direct correlation between indoor and
ranges (Ta = 20 °C; RH = 50%) [32]. This data highlights the direct correlation between
outdoor
indoor and conditions,
outdoor theconditions,
number of visitors,the number managementof visitors,techniques
managementand cleaning procedures.
techniques Average
and cleaning
thermal data respect the standards [32]. In winter, average T is 20 ◦ C (but with peaks of 18 ◦ C), thanks
procedures. Average thermal data respect the standards [32]. In winter, average Ta is 20 °C (but with
a
to the presence
peaks of 18 °C),ofthanksthe HVAC to the system,
presence andof the thedaily
HVAC fluctuation
system,isand ±2 ◦the
C. In summer,
daily the average
fluctuation is ±2 °C.Ta In
is
25 ◦ C (butthe with peaks of ◦ is ±2and ◦
summer, average Ta33is 25 C),°Cand(butthewith
dailypeaksfluctuation
of 33 °C), C.the
Ondaily
the contrary,
fluctuation seasonal
is ±2 fluctuation
°C. On the
(∆T = ±9 ◦ C) is higher than the standards (∆T = ±2 ◦ C) [32]. The problem is more controlled in the
contrary, seasonal fluctuation (ΔTa = ±9 °C) is higher than the standards (ΔTa = ±2 °C) [32]. The
a a
a =controlled
±2 ◦ C) than a = a±8
first rooms ◦ C). This situation recurs seasonally. Despite
problem is (∆T
more in the
thelastfirstones
rooms (∆T(ΔT = ±2 °C) than the last ones (ΔTa = ±8 °C). This
this, the collection
situation does not present
recurs seasonally. Despite thermal
this, the decay,
collection likedoes
dilatation or craquelure.
not present Autumn
thermal decay, likeand winter
dilatation
seasons present the most important RH fluctuations, due
or craquelure. Autumn and winter seasons present the most important RH fluctuations, due to to cleaning, managing and maintaining
procedures.
cleaning, managing The highand thickness of masonries
maintaining procedures.and theThe presence of buffer zones
high thickness favor RH
of masonries and stability, which
the presence
varies only with external rain and visitors’ fluxes (especially in the
of buffer zones favor RH stability, which varies only with external rain and visitors’ fluxes (especially smaller rooms). RH is in the range
45% ± 55% in winter, and 45% ± 55% in summer. It never exceeds
in the smaller rooms). RH is in the range 45% ± 55% in winter, and 45% ± 55% in summer. It never the standard threshold (RH < 60%)
for generating
exceeds potential biological
the standard threshold damage (RH < in 60%)the collection
for generating [32]. Daily and seasonal
potential biological RH damage
fluctuations in are
the
the maximum allowed by the standard [32], and respectively
collection [32]. Daily and seasonal RH fluctuations are the maximum allowed by the standard [32],are ±5% and ± 10%. Portable humidifiers
cause great indoorare
and respectively instability
±5% and(RH > 60%).
± 10%. PortableAs expected,
humidifiers CO2causeconcentrations
great indoor are instability
higher at the (RH weekend
> 60%).
or
Asholidays
expected, than
COduring the week. The
2 concentrations data reveals
are higher at thethe correlation
weekend betweenthan
or holidays CO2 during
concentration
the week. and The
the
flux of visitors. In the following, the results of a typical week are
data reveals the correlation between CO2 concentration and the flux of visitors. In the following, the shown (Figures 6 and 7).
results of a typical week are shown (Figures 6 and 7).
Figure 6. Portable humidifiers cause hygrometric instability as shown by long-term monitoring in a

typical season (room n. XXXVI).
Figure 7. RH varies greatly while Taa is stable, as shown by long-term monitoring in a typical week
(Mocchirolo’s Chapel, room
(Mocchirolo’s Chapel, room n.
n. Ia).
Comfort analysis reveals the presence of human discomfort, both in summer and winter. First, First,
it shows
showsthetheinadequacy
inadequacy of the
of visual comfort,
the visual because
comfort, the natural
because and artificial
the natural and lights do not
artificial emphasize
lights do not
the aestheticthe
emphasize and chromatic
aesthetic andvalues of thevalues
chromatic collection.
of theThe most important
collection. The mostcriticisms
importantconcern the concern
criticisms color of
plasters
the colorand artificialand
of plasters lightings. Museum
artificial lightings.attendees
Museum remember
attendeesthe warm and
remember thediffuse
warm light atmosphere
and diffuse light
created by the
atmosphere previous
created “Brera
by the yellow”
previous plaster.
“Brera The plaster.
yellow” actual mat
Theand white
actual matplaster changes
and white plastercompletely
changes
this originalthis
completely atmosphere, creating monotone
original atmosphere, tones in some
creating monotone tonesrooms.
in someRed andRed
rooms. greenandplasters have a
green plasters
better
have aimpact
better on the visitors’
impact perception.
on the visitors’ Similarly,Similarly,
perception. the replacement of the fluorescent
the replacement lamps withlamps
of the fluorescent high
efficiency
with high spots improves
efficiency spotstheir energy
improves performances,
their also modifying
energy performances, the users’ perception.
also modifying The actual
the users’ perception.
light sources
The actual appear
light tooappear
sources cold and toouniform
cold andalong the along
uniform exhibition. The international
the exhibition. visitors suggest
The international visitors
creating visual centers
suggest creating visualfor the masterpieces,
centers to accentuate
for the masterpieces, their tonalities.
to accentuate The staff also
their tonalities. The reveal a thermal
staff also reveal
discomfort. In winter, the presence
a thermal discomfort. In winter, the presence of low T a of low Ta forces them to work with a coat on, while T
forces them to work with a coat on, while in summer, ina
appears
summer,too high, especially
Ta appears too high, inespecially
the last rooms.
in the This situation
last rooms. is confirmed
This situation isby the LTM. by
confirmed Notheacoustic
LTM.
comfort is detected
No acoustic comfortthanks to thethanks
is detected presence of apresence
to the green patioof a(Table
green 4).
patio (Table 4).
Table 4. Results of the comfort analysis in the Pinacoteca di Brera.
Problems Point Out in the Comfort Analysis

Type of User Rooms
Summer Winter
Thermal comfort
I–XV
High thermal excursion
- High RH
High Ta and RH Thermal comfort
Museum attendants Insufficient ventilation High thermal excursion
XVI–XXIX High thermal excursion
High RH
Perception of absence of HVAC systems
Unbeatable Ta Low Ta
Insufficient ventilation -
No visual comfort
High thermal excursion Hygrothermal comfort
National museum visitors Entire museum
High Ta -
Excessively uniform E -
High Ta Hygrothermal comfort
International museum visitors Entire museum Absence of visual comfort Visual comfort
Not enhanced visual impact Low E
5.4. Expertise Level

The “expertise level” permits us to identify guidelines and suggestions for solving specific
problems in preventive conservation and human comfort. Basically, there is no irremediable contrast
between protection and accessibility. The old palace has a suitable geometric and constructive profile
for hosting a museum building, thanks to the presence of compact shapes, high thermal resistance and
the inertia of the building envelope, the buffer spaces for protecting the museum rooms (i.e., passages,
patios, green yards) and possible cross-ventilation strategies. The opaque building envelope (walls and
ceilings) is typical of northern Italy, with brick masonries with high thickness (0.80 m). The qualitative
infrared (hereinafter, IR) thermography shows the presence of thermal uniformity and reduced thermal
bridges, as well as the absence of water infiltrations. Windows and curtain glasses, despite their
replacement in 1980, are subject to thermal losses and air leakage. It is necessary to perform an
energy audit for evaluating the most appropriate interventions (i.e., sealing, insertion of a well-isolated
curtain or a low-emissivity coating, replacement with new systems with better performances, air
permeability, and UV protection). No bioclimatic design based on natural light and ventilation
control has been studied during the various refurbishments. The implementation of these passive
measures can guarantee an adequate environmental performance for heritage conservation and
human comfort. Additionally, portable humidifiers regulate the hygrometric fluctuations via the
intervention of the museum attendants. Some rooms have higher indoor RH fluctuations than the
conservative standards [32] (Section 5.3). RH variability is caused mainly by the presence of portable
humidifiers, the flux of people, and cleaning procedures. The humidifiers are not always necessary for
conservative policies, besides having high energy consumption. Thus, it is recommended to switch
them on only with low RH levels (RH < 30–35%), in order to not generate hygrometric damage and
biodegradation (e.g., presence of microorganisms, wet-corrosion, moisture in walls) [32]. The use
of water in the cleaning procedures should also be reduced. An energy audit is recommended to
evaluate the most appropriate measures for controlling Ta and RH. The electric system is safe from
risks (Section 5.1). Lighting has discrete energy performances, guaranteed by daylight integration,
the choice of lamps, and periodic maintenance. On the contrary, the comfort analysis demonstrates
several visual discomforts linked to the chromatic and lighting design (Section 5.3). Numerous
low-engineering interventions can be suggested. First, it is not opportune to reduce E to favor human
comfort, as people lament the difficulty in seeing the objects. To minimize potential photochemical
alteration, it is necessary to reduce the annual “energy exposure level” with the rotation of artifacts,
or the insertion of IR control system for switching on the light only with people present. It is also
better to check periodically the performance of UV and IR filters with the support of visual analyses
and monitoring devices. International visitors suggest creating new visual centers, to emphasize the
masterpieces with a specific chromatic and lighting design. Museum attendants propose recreating
the original chromatic atmosphere, using warm plasters and light sources in the same color tones
as the artworks. A separate discussion refers to murals and frescoes inserted in Mocchirolo’s and
San Giuseppe’s Chapels, which require limited E and perfect climate stability. The daily and weekly
Ta are quite stable, while the RH has high weekly fluctuations. Regulation of the visits is useful to
plan a separate climatic control. The main problems of the Pinacoteca depend on the progress of the
conservation science, especially related to management procedures, planning regulations and financial
resources. In most cases, the conservative issues are due to the fragmentary modification of the exhibits
in different historical periods, to solve localised and contingent efforts. Additionally, the hygrothermal
monitoring shows a strict link between RH fluctuations, clearing procedures and the fluctuations of
visitors (Section 5.3). In this case, specific training can be done for the museum staff, to explicate the
correct procedure to be adopted. Low-engineering interventions to reduce this problem include the
daily analysis of RH fluctuations, the correct use of the portable humidifiers, the adoption of cleaning
procedures without water, and the regulation of touristic and group visits. Furthermore, the building
needs continuous commissioning, to verify the existence of appropriate energy and environmental
conditions [14]. Finally, a museum conservation program can be useful to explicate in a clear way the
internal environmental recommendations for the attendants. Below, the issues detected, comparing
the original and current layout, are summarized (Table 5).
Table 5. Environmental risks and possible recommendations related to the modifications of the original
design by Portaluppi and Albini.
Environmental
Original Design Modifications Recommendations Adjunctive Tests
Risks
To seal the skylights
Blower door test
High heat loss and To insert a well-isolated
(BDT)
air infiltrations curtain or a low-emissivity
IR-thermography
from skylights coating on skylights
(IRT)
To perform an energy audit
To verify the pollutant
concentration
To keep surfaces clean
Pollutant
Replacement of Non-filtered air To use dust covers without
concentration
curtains and from windows visitors
Replacement of the monitoring
original skylights skylights with To evaluate the pollution
glass-chamber and filtering in HVAC
UV-filters
To use portable air-filters with
activate carbon filters
To not reduce E
To reduce EE respecting the
conservative standards
To verify UVmax
High E for Visual analysis
To verify the conservation
conservation UV and IR
state of UV filters
standards monitoring
To replace UV-filters where is
necessary
To reduce EE using shutters or
filters
Visual discomfort
Closure of all Opening of the To rotate the artworks between E and Ta
Low E for human
windows existing windows museum and storage rooms monitoring
comfort
To use window coverings
Table 5. Cont.
Environmental
Risks
To not reduce E
Opening of vaults High E for To reduce EE
- E monitoring
in the entrance hall conservation To rotate the artworks between
museum and storage rooms
Replacement of
floors, walls, and - No problem - -
baseboards
Refurbishment of
- No problem - -
the roof
To create visual centers
Too uniform
To emphasize the masterpieces
luminance
Wall plastering with chromatic design
New wall Questionnaires,
(bright yellow
plastering Changes in the To use bright warm plasters in POE
plaster)
original chromatic the same color tones of
atmosphere artworks
Selection of
To create esthetic centers on
decorative - No problem -
these materials
materials
To not reduce E
To reduce EE
High E for
To reduce the display time for
conservation E monitoring
fragile artefacts
standards
To define the maximum EE for
each artefact
To recreate the original
chromatic atmosphere
Replacement of To realize a new lighting
original sources design with Tc of lamps Questionnaires,
Insertion of Too uniform
with halide lamps correlated with artworks color POE Luminance
fluorescent light luminance
Addition of tones monitoring
sources electronic To improve light contrast
regulators To use high energy
performance light sources
To verify Ta fluctuations on
high sensible artifacts
Thermal To check anti-IR filter on the
Indoor Ta
fluctuations on lamps
monitoring
objects To use low-T lamps
To use external or integrate
lamps in display-cases
High seasonal ∆Ta To valorize the original
fluctuation for building features
Ta monitoring
Several conservative To check HVAC system
HVAC systems
modifications standards periodically
Overheating and To verify the benefits of Questionnaire,
high Ta in summer cross-ventilation strategies POE
To define clear guidelines with
RH levels for each typology of
High RH level object
To evaluate the use of active
RH regulation systems
Absence of Insertion of To valorize the original RH indoor
hygrometric project portable building features monitoring
humidifiers To check daily RH fluctuations
RH fluctuations in To control the flux of visits
autumn and winter To switch-on the humidifiers
with RH < 30%
To insert passive RH
regulation systems
To use dry cleaning
Table 5. Cont.
Environmental
Risks
New storage room
Addition of climate
without climate No problem - -
control storages
control
Reconstruction of New lighting E, Ta, RH

High E level To reduce EE
the Mocchirolo’s design monitoring
Chapel - RH fluctuations To regulate visits Questionare, POE
Absence of
Internal
conservation No problem To add energy policies in MPP -
conservation policy
program
6. Conclusions
The research presents an operative instrument for evaluating the environmental risks in complex
museums located in historic buildings. This SOBANE approach suggests a strategic and repeatable
methodology for conserving and enhancing the cultural heritage, recognizing that the project is
not limited to the building design, but it requires maintenance and preventive conservation actions
over time: “[ . . . ] achieving appropriate environmental conditions is one thing. Sustaining these
conditions is often another matter” ([14] p. 39). This method is applied to the Pinacoteca di Brera
in Milan, to validate its suitability in a real case study with the support of museum attendants.
This innovative approach can be easily applicable to other museums located in historic and existing
buildings, independently of the building features (i.e., typology, age, architectonic style), and the type
of collection (i.e., art museums, archeologic museums, historic house museum, history or living history
museums, encyclopedic museums, science museums or natural history museums). Furthermore,
this decision-making process can be adapted to local legislative frameworks, policies and management
procedures. The present approach suggests an easy and accessible corpus operandi: (i) to assess the
energy and environmental quality; (ii) to check the possible risks; (iii) quantify the factors responsible
for damage phenomena; (iv) to select the most appropriate interventions to improve the conservation
state; and (v) to program correct retrofit solutions. The immediate benefits of employing this SOBANE
approach for environmental risk management in museums include:
• Efficient decision-making process for the risk assessment in museum buildings;

• Progressive approach based on simple steps (at the end of each level, the operative staff decides
whether to pursue the investigations at the subsequent level);
• Immediate validation of ideas or concepts for each single step;
• Lower cost and reduced time for its development;
• Application of a co-design approach that favors collaboration with interdisciplinary skills and
knowledge to generate original ideas and interventions;
• Better cooperation between different people and organizations, and across disciplines;
• Improved knowledge of museum attendants and visitors.
The long-term benefits include:
• Planning of comprehensive retrofit interventions, aimed not only at solving specific problems and
urgent risks;
• Cost-efficient planning of the refurbishment, based on the available financial resources, and devoted
to the reduction of logistical problems, timing and the cost of single actions;
• Definition of low-engineering interventions, based on vigilance, effective maintenance, managerial
training and motivation of the staff. These interventions are not considered in a traditional
refurbishment process;
• Introduction of correct and continuative maintenance procedures, essential to prevent decay,

discomfort and the malfunction of systems;
• Development of a risk management plan as a continuous process for adjusting and monitoring
the interventions;
• Improved interest and participation in museum attendants that became conscious of the importance
of their role for care and environmental sustainability;
• Introduction of ad hoc training activities for the museum attendants.
This experience also shows that a widespread knowledge of the state of the art of the museum
must be considered for the success of environmental risk management. Furthermore, participatory
actions with museum attendants are important mechanisms for improving their awareness of daily
management and maintenance.
Funding: This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments: This work was done during the research fellowship in the Politecnico di Milano. The author
thanks the museum attendants, conservators, curators and heritage authorities for the fruitful exchange on the
risk management of heritage buildings and collections.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Nomenclature
E light level [lux]
EE annual energy exposition [MW/lm]
UV ultraviolet radiation [Kluxh/year]
DF daylight factor [%]
G glare index [-]
TI Color temperature index [K]
Ra color rendering index [◦ C]
Ta dry bulb air temperature [◦ C]
Tmr mean radiant temperature [◦ C]
To operative temperature [◦ C]
Ts surface temperature [◦ C]
∆T temperature difference [◦ C]
RH air relative humidity [%]
∆RH hygrometric changes [%]
va air velocity [m/sec]
SOx sulfur oxides [mg/m3 ]
NOx nitrous oxides [mg/m3 ]
O3 ozone [mg/m3 ]
CO carbon oxide [mg/m3 ]
CO2 carbon dioxide [mg/m3 ]
r air-changes [l/s people]
PM10 particulate matter [l/s people]
min minimum
max maximum
EU European
ICOM International Council of Museums
ICCROM International Centre for the Study of Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
QPI Qualitative Performance Indicator
ECPP Exhibit Conservation Performance Program
PCPP People Comfort Performance Program
MPP Museum Performance Program
STM Short-term monitoring

LTM Long-term monitoring
HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
IR Infrared
References
1. ICOM (International Council of Museums). ICOM Statutes; ICOM: Vienna, Austria, 2007.
2. Council of Europe. Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society,
CETS No. 199. 2005. Available online: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/199.htm (accessed
on 21 December 2019).
3. Council of Europe. Action Plan for the Promotion of the Faro Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural
Heritage for Society 2013–2015, AT 510/2014. 2014. Available online: www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/
heritage/identities/AT-2014-510-Faro-AP_en.pdf (accessed on 21 December 2019).
4. Cerquetti, M. More is better! Current issues and challenges for museum audience development: A literature
review. ENCATC J. Cult. Manag. Policy 2016, 6, 2224–2554.
5. Douglas, D. The Museum Transformed: Design and Culture in the Post-Pompidou Age; Abbeville Press: New York,
NY, USA, 1990.
6. Janes, R.; Conaty, G. Looking Reality in the Eye: Museums and Social Responsibility; University of Calgary Press:
Calgary, AB, Canada, 2005.
7. Dindler, C. Designing infrastructures for creative engagement. Dig. Creat. 2014, 25, 212–223. [CrossRef]
8. Hooper-Greenhill, E. Changing values in the art museum: Rethinking communication and learning. Int. J.
Herit. Stud. 2000, 6, 9–31. [CrossRef]
9. Tombazis, A.N. Guidelines for the Design and Retrofitting of Energy Efficient Museums for Antiquities in the
Mediterranean Countries; Kakkizas: Athens, Greece, 1999.
10. Tombazis, A.N. Retrofitting of Museums for Antiquities in the Mediterranean Countries; Case Study:
The Archeological Museum of Delphi, Kakkizas: Athens, Greece, 1998.
11. Avrami, E. The Conservation Assessment: A Proposed Model for Evaluating Museum Environmental Management
Needs; The Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1999.
12. Camuffo, D. Microclimate for Cultural Heritage; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019.
13. Carbonara, G. An Italian contribution to architectural restoration. Front. Arch. Res. 2012, 1, 2–9. [CrossRef]
14. Cassar, M. (Ed.) Museums Environment Energy; HMSO: London, UK, 1994.
15. ICCROM (International Centre for the Study of Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property). Teamwork
for Preventive Conservation; ICCROM: Roma, Italy, 2004.
16. National Park Service (NPS). Museum Handbook; NPS: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
17. Consiglio Superiore per le Antichità e Belle Arti. Carta Italiana del Restauro; Consiglio Superiore: Roma,
Italy, 1931.
18. International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). The Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic
Monuments. In Proceedings of the First International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic
Monuments, Athens, Greece; 1931. Available online: www.icomos.org/en/167-the-athens-charter-for-the-
restoration-of-historic-monuments (accessed on 21 December 2019).
19. International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). International Charter for the Conservation and
Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter). In Proceedings of the IInd International Congress
of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, Venice, Italy, 25–31 May 1964.
20. Plenderlith, H.J. The Conservation of Antiquities and Works of Art: Treatment, Repair, and Restoration.
Libr. Q. Inf. Commun. Policy 1958, 4, 46–54.
21. ICCROM (International Centre for the Study of Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property). Museum
Conservation: Lighting; ICCROM: Roma, Italy, 1975.
22. ICOM (International Council of Museums). La Lumière et la Protection des Objets et Spécimens Exposés Dans les
MUSÉES et Galeries d’Art; ICOM: Paris, France, 1971.
23. Thomson, G. The Museum Environment; Butterworths: London, UK, 1978.
24. Stolow, N. Conservation Standards for Works of Art in Transit and on Exhibition, Museums and Monuments;
Unipub: Paris, France, 1979.
25. Banks, J.M. Guidelines for Preventive Conservation; Committee on Conservation/Preservation of Library
Materials: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1981.
26. CIBSE (Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers). Lighting for Museum and Galleries; CIBSE: Paris,
France, 1994.
27. Cassar, M. Environmental Management: Guidelines for Museums and Galleries; Routledge: London, UK;
New York, NY, USA, 1995.
28. IESNA (Illuminating Engineering Society of North America). Lighting Handbook; IESNA: New York, NY,
USA, 2000.
29. Blades, N.; Oreszczyn, T.; Cassar, M.; Bordass, W. Guideline on Pollution Control in Museum Buildings; Museums
Association: London, UK, 2000; p. 15.
30. CIE (Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage). CIE 157. Technical Report Control of Damage to Museum Objects
by Optical Radiation; CIE: Paris, France, 2004.
31. Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione (UNI). Condizioni Climatiche per Ambienti di Conservazione di Documenti
Grafici e Caratteristiche Degli Alloggiamenti, Standard UNI 10586; UNI: Milano, Italy, 1999.
32. Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione (UNI). Beni di Interesse Storico Artistico. Condizioni Ambientali di
Conservazione. Misure ed Analisi, Standard UNI 10829; UNI: Milano, Italy, 1999.
33. Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione (UNI). Principi Generali per la Scelta e il Controllo del Microclima per la
Conservazione, Beni Culturali, Standard UNI 10969; UNI: Milano, Italy, 2002.
34. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Indoor Environmental Parameters for Assessment of Energy
Performance of Buildings, Addressing Indoor Air Quality, Thermal Environment, Lighting and Acoustics, Standard
EN 15251; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
35. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Conservation of Cultural Property. Specifications for Temperature
and Relative Humidity to Limit Climate-Induced Mechanical Damage in Organic Hygroscopic Materials, Standard
36. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Conservation of Cultural Property. Procedures and Instruments
for Measuring Temperatures of the Air and the Surfaces of Objects, Standard EN 15758; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2010.
37. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Conservation of Cultural Property. Indoor climate, Standard
38. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Conservation of Cultural Heritage. Procedures and Instruments
for Measuring Humidity in the Air and Moisture Exchanges between Air and Cultural Property, Standard EN 16242;
CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
39. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Conservation of Cultural Heritage. Guidelines and Procedures
for Choosing Appropriate Lighting for Indoor Exhibitions, Standard CEN/TS 16163; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2014.
40. Museum & Galleries Commission. Standards in the Museum Care of Archaeological Collections; Museums &
Galleries Commission: London, UK, 1992.
41. Service Archéologique Departmental des Yvelines. L’actualité de la Conservation-Restauration en Archéologie:
Produits et Techniques, Conservation Preventive; ARAAFU: Paris, France, 1998.
42. Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI). Preventive Conservation in Museums; Universite du Quebec: Montreal,
QC, Canada, 1995.
43. Cassar, M.; Hutchings, J. Relative Humidity and Temperature Pattern Book. A Guide to Understanding and Using
Data on the Museum Environment; Museums&Galleries Commission: London, UK, 2000.
44. Tétreault, J. Airborne Pollutants in Museums, Galleries, and Archives: Risk Assessment, Control Strategies,
and Preservation Management; Canadian Conservation Institute: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2003.
45. Michalski, S.; Grattan, D. Environmental Guidelines for Museums; Canadian Conservation Institute: Ottawa,
ON, Canada, 2010.
46. Heritage Collection Council (HCC). Guidelines for Environmental Control in Cultural Institutions; HCC: Canberra,
Australia, 2002.
47. Lucchi, E. Review of preventive conservation in museum buildings. J. Cult. Herit. 2018, 29, 180–183.
[CrossRef]
48. ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers); Museums, Galleries,
Archives, and Libraries, in ASHRAE (Eds.) ASHRAE Handbook: Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning
Applications; ASHRAE: Atlanta, Georgia, 2015; p. 23.
49. Padfield, T. The role of standards and guidelines. are they a substitute for understanding a problem or
protection against the consequences of ignorance? In Durability and Change; Krumbein, W.E., Ed.; Wiley:
Copenhagen, Denmark, 1994; pp. 191–199.
50. CEN/TC 346 (2009–2014). Conservation of Cultural Heritage; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels,
Belgium; Available online: https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/tc/cen/782ad083-d5d4-4d4f-ac6d-36572d262c15/
cen-tc-346 (accessed on 21 December 2019).
51. New Orleans Charter for the Joint Preservation of Historic Structures and Artefacts. Available online:
www.culturalheritage.org (accessed on 21 December 2019).
52. Luciani, A. Historical Climates and Conservation Environments. Historical Perspectives on Climate Control
Strategies within Museum and Heritage Buildings. Ph.D. Thesis, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy, 2013.
53. ICCROM (International Centre for the Study of Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property). A Guide
to Risk Management of Cultural Heritage; ICCROM: Sharjah, UAE, 2016.
54. Ankersmit, B.; Stappers, M.H.L. Managing Indoor Climate Risks in Museums; Springer: Basel, Switzerland, 2016.
55. Lucchi, E. Multidisciplinary risk-based analysis for supporting the decision-making process on conservation,
energy efficiency, and human comfort in museum buildings. J. Cult. Herit. 2018, 22, 1079–1089. [CrossRef]
56. Malchaire, J. The SOBANE risk management strategy and the Dèparis method for the participatory screening
of the risks. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2004, 77, 443–450. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Wirilander, H. Preventive Conservation: A Key Method to Ensure Cultural Heritage’s Authenticity and
Integrity in Preservation Process, Connaissances et reconnaissance du conservateur-restaurateur. CeROArt
2012, 6.
58. Padfield, T.; Borchersen, K. Museum Microclimates; The National Museum of Denmark: Copenhagen,
Denmark, 2007.
59. Kuzucuoglu, A.H. Risk management in libraries, archives and museums. IIB Int. Ref. Accad. Soc. Sci. J. 2014,
15, 277–294.
60. Vranikas, N.; Kosmopoulos, P.; Papadopoulos, A.M. Management of museums’ indoor environment: An
interdisciplinary challenge. Adv. Build. Energy Res. 2011, 5, 43–51. [CrossRef]
61. Ashley-Smith, J. Risk Assessment for Object Conservation; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2011.
62. Staniforth, S. Environmental conditions for the safeguarding of collections: Future trends. Stud. Conserv.
2014, 59, 213–217. [CrossRef]
63. Živković, V.; Džikić, V. Return to basics. Environmental management for museum collections and historic
houses. Energy Build. 2015, 95, 116–123. [CrossRef]
64. D’Agostino, V.; Alfano, F.R.D.A.; Palella, B.I.; Riccio, G. The museum environment: A protocol for evaluation
of microclimatic conditions. Energy Build. 2015, 95, 124–129. [CrossRef]
65. Ferdyn-Grygierek, J. Indoor environment quality in the museum building and its effect on heating and
cooling demand. Energy Build. 2014, 85, 32–44. [CrossRef]
66. Entradas Silva, H.; Henriques, F.M.; Henriques, T.A.; Coelho, G. A sequential process to assess and optimize
the indoor climate in museums. Build. Environ. 2016, 104, 21–34. [CrossRef]
67. International Organization for Standard (ISO). Risk Management: Guidelines, Standard ISO 31000; ISO: Brussels,
Belgium, 2018.
68. Lucchi, E. Simplified assessment method for environmental and energy quality in museum buildings.
Energy Build. 2016, 117, 216–229. [CrossRef]
69. Arrigoni, L.; Bandera, S. (Eds.) La Pinacoteca di Brera; Skira: Milano, Italy, 2010.
70. Matalon, S. La Pinacoteca di Brera a Milano; Garzanti: Milano, Italy, 1952.
71. Tardito, R. Brera. Storia Della Pinacoteca e Delle Sue Collezioni; Editoriale Cantini: Milano, Italy, 1986.
72. Watson, C. Review of building quality using post occupancy evaluation, PEB Exchange. J. Programme
Educ. Build. 2003, 48, 15–18.
73. SIRBec–Sistema Informativo dei Beni Culturali di Regione Lombardia. Available online: www.
lombardiabeniculturali.it (accessed on 21 December 2019).
© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Sustainability 12 05155

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 12 05155

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Keywords: museum buildings; preventive conservation; human comfort; conservation of 20th

Sustainability 2020, 12, 5155; doi:10.3390/su12125155 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2. Aim of the Study

3. The Case Study: Pinacoteca di Brera

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 23

4.1. Screening Level

4.2. Observation Level

4.3. Analysis Level

The results of this study in the Pinacoteca di Brera

Standard Requirements for MPP Real Conditions

5.3. Analysis Level

Figure 5. Results of short-term

Figure 6. Portable humidifiers cause hygrometric instability as shown by long-term monitoring in a

Table 4. Results of the comfort analysis in the Pinacoteca di Brera.

Problems Point Out in the Comfort Analysis

5.4. Expertise Level

Reconstruction of New lighting E, Ta, RH

• Efficient decision-making process for the risk assessment in museum buildings;

The long-term benefits include:

• Introduction of correct and continuative maintenance procedures, essential to prevent decay,

Funding: This research received no external funding.

STM Short-term monitoring

You might also like